Abnormality in Psychology: Definitions, Approaches and Critical Evaluation
This work has been verified by our teacher: 10.02.2026 at 18:31
Homework type: Essay
Added: 9.02.2026 at 7:31
Summary:
Explore key definitions and approaches to abnormality in psychology, learning how different perspectives explain mental health and behaviour in the UK context.
Understanding Abnormality in Psychology: Definitions, Approaches, and Evaluations
The study of abnormality lies at the heart of psychology’s efforts to understand mental health and illness, yet defining what is meant by “abnormal” remains one of psychology’s thorniest and most debated issues. Abnormality does not simply denote that which is rare or unusual; it is a concept laden with cultural assumptions, historical context, and personal judgement. Misunderstandings around what constitutes abnormal behaviour carry profound consequences, not only for those deemed “abnormal” but also for the ways societies provide care, formulate legislation, and organise support systems. This essay will explore the conceptual difficulties embedded in defining abnormality, focusing on three central approaches used in British psychological discourse: the deviation from social norms, failure to function adequately, and deviation from ideal mental health. It will also consider the biological approach to abnormality, critically evaluating its contributions and limitations within the UK context. Throughout, I will demonstrate how these perspectives intersect, sometimes conflict, and why a pluralistic understanding is essential.
---
I. Conceptualising Abnormality
Defining abnormality is not as straightforward as it may first appear. At a surface level, “abnormal” can simply mean “not normal”—but this circular definition quickly collapses under scrutiny. The rich diversity of human behaviour, beliefs, and emotions means that what is considered “normal” in one context may be “abnormal” in another. For example, the boisterous singing of football fans might be wholly appropriate at Anfield or Old Trafford, but utterly bizarre in a library. Thus, the complexity arises not from the behaviours themselves, but from the frameworks through which we interpret them.Complicating matters still further, definitions of abnormality are inextricably linked to culture and history. Behaviours condemned in the past may be celebrated today; conversely, acts regarded as harmless in one society may be criminalised in another. The modal “British stiff upper lip” of the post-war era, for example, promoted emotional restraint, while modern psychological services increasingly encourage expression and openness. Amidst these nuances, psychology has developed a range of approaches to clarify where the boundaries of abnormality might lie, with each perspective emphasising different criteria.
---
II. Deviation from Social Norms
Explanation
Deviation from social norms deems behaviour abnormal if it significantly diverges from the unwritten rules that guide and structure society. Social norms exist as shared expectations for behaviour: queuing serenely at a bus stop, respecting personal space, or using polite language, all form a network of habits woven through daily British life. When an individual contravenes these conventions—such as talking loudly to oneself on the Tube—they may be judged abnormal. The social norms approach thus emphasises the powerful influence of collective values in shaping what is considered acceptable or deviant.Strengths
This definition is intuitively appealing because it situates behaviour within a recognisable context. It helps explain why acts such as violence or theft are broadly labelled as undesirable across different settings. Moreover, its social grounding allows for practical interventions: public health campaigns, for instance, often work by shifting perceptions of what is “normal.” In the mental health sphere, clear breaches of social conduct—aggressive outbursts, for instance—can alert professionals to the need for assessment or support.Limitations and Criticisms
Yet the approach is not without its pitfalls. Social norms are products of their time and place, and what is judged abnormal in one context may be perfectly accepted elsewhere. Attitudes towards sexuality provide a salient example: homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in Britain well into the mid-20th century and only removed from the World Health Organisation’s list in the 1990s. Likewise, rituals and practices elsewhere may seem odd from a British perspective, but are perfectly integrated within their societies. Defining abnormality by social norms risks pathologising difference and can underpin the marginalisation or persecution of minority groups. The approach is also subject to the tyranny of the majority—labelling the unconventional as “mad” or “bad” simply because it is unfamiliar or misunderstood. Furthermore, how eccentric or persistent must a behaviour be before it is deemed abnormal? This lack of clarity can complicate diagnosis, leaving individuals in a liminal space between difference and disorder.Examples
Consider the experience of British asylum seekers from cultures with very different norms around expressions of grief or faith. Behaviour considered “abnormal” in the UK may be entirely unremarkable at home, leading to misunderstanding by authorities or healthcare professionals. Similarly, views once held sacrosanct—like the criminalisation of “witchcraft”—have, over time, been relegated to superstition.---
III. Failure to Function Adequately
Explanation
An alternative framework assesses abnormality by the individual’s ability to manage everyday demands—a concept known as “failure to function adequately.” This shifts the focus from society’s expectations to the person’s well-being. Are they capable of holding down a job, maintaining relationships, or caring for themselves? Clinical tools like the Global Assessment of Functioning assess such capacities, while psychological services within the NHS regularly use functional indicators to determine the need for intervention.Strengths
This approach has significant practical strengths. By centring on subjective distress and observable dysfunction, it bypasses some cultural biases. For instance, if an individual is so anxious they cannot leave the house, regardless of social norms, this functional impairment is likely to prompt clinical concern. In this way, the concept aligns closely with the ethos of British mental health care, which emphasises practical support and individual experience. It encourages sensitivity to the actual impact of difficulties, rather than arbitrary moral judgement.Limitations and Criticisms
Nonetheless, there are drawbacks. Not all maladaptive behaviours signify disorder; someone choosing to fast for religious reasons may be temporarily unable to work, but is not necessarily mentally ill. Cultural background has a profound influence on what “adequate” functioning means: in collectivist cultures, dependency may be the norm, while British society values independence and “pulling one’s weight.” There is also the difficulty of subjective thresholds: who decides when distress or functional impairment is “enough”? Patients may conceal their struggles through fear of stigma, or conversely, experience dysfunction in ways outsiders do not immediately see.Examples
An illustrative example might be a university student exhibiting acute exam-related anxiety, who avoids lectures and falls behind. While their behaviour might appear as simple disengagement, understanding their difficulty through the failure to function lens can prompt effective intervention. Comparatively, a person with unconventional spiritual beliefs might be considered odd by their neighbours, but so long as they function well in everyday life, they would not be judged “abnormal” using this criterion.---
IV. Deviation from Ideal Mental Health
Explanation
Marie Jahoda’s (1958) seminal work set out criteria for “ideal mental health”—including realistic self-perception, resilience to stress, personal autonomy, and self-actualisation. These criteria offer a positive, aspirational view, focusing not on illness, but on flourishing. From this stance, abnormality is defined as the absence of these features.Strengths
This perspective is commendably holistic. It moves beyond the mere absence of symptoms and encourages both clinicians and clients to view mental health as something to be fostered and developed—an approach reflected today in NHS programmes like “Five Ways to Wellbeing.” It also resonates with current UK policy shifts away from “illness” language and towards recovery and wellbeing.Limitations and Criticisms
However, the utopian nature of Jahoda’s standards is problematic: how many people meet all of her criteria at once? By her definition, nearly everyone would be “abnormal” at some point, which undermines the distinction between health and illness. The British valorisation of stoicism and understatement, for instance, complicates expectations around “resilience to stress” or “self-actualisation.” Additionally, some values—such as personal autonomy—are culture-bound, privileging the individualistic tendencies of British and Western contexts over collectivist societies, where interdependence is the norm. The definition’s very breadth also risks vagueness, making it difficult to operationalise in clinical practice.Examples
Consider the average secondary school pupil at exam time: anxious, self-doubting, and cranky. According to Jahoda’s criteria, they would not display “ideal” mental health, but this transience hardly justifies a psychiatric label. Across cultures, concepts of wellbeing also differ—what’s valued in British communities may not translate directly to South Asian or African diasporas.---
V. The Biological Approach to Abnormality
Overview and Assumptions
In contrast to social or psychological models, the biological approach contends that mental disorders arise from malfunctions in our bodies—be it genetics, neurochemistry, or brain structure. This strategy moves away from blaming “weak character” or “immoral behaviour,” providing a scientific anchor for understanding distress.Main Biological Explanations
Neurochemical imbalances—such as deficiencies in serotonin observed in depression or excess dopamine linked to schizophrenia—are widely cited. The British pharmaceutical industry, history, and NHS practice are steeped in the management of psychiatric conditions by modulating these chemicals. Cases of brain injury, too, powerfully illustrate this connection: Phineas Gage, whose frontal lobe was damaged in a railway accident, displayed radical personality changes, a case still discussed in A-level and undergraduate classrooms across the UK. Genetic inheritance has long intrigued British researchers; Gottesman’s classic twin studies, frequently referenced in OCR and AQA exam specifications, reveal higher concordance rates for schizophrenia in identical twins compared to their non-identical counterparts.Strengths
The biological model’s greatest strength is objectivity. It relies on empirical evidence—brain scans, blood tests, genome analysis—which underpins medical treatments like antidepressants and antipsychotics, both staples of NHS care. Moreover, this approach has contributed to destigmatising many conditions, positioning sufferers as people afflicted by illness, not wilful deviance.Limitations and Criticisms
Yet, this model is also criticised for reductionism—boiling down experience to neurotransmitters or faulty genes. Many disorders show incomplete concordance even in identical twins, highlighting the significance of social and psychological factors. Medications, while valuable, often address symptoms rather than root causes and can have severe side effects. There are ethical uncertainties too: the possibility of genetic “screening” for mental health issues raises concerns about discrimination, insurance access, and individual rights.Examples
The experience of British families coping with inherited risk for disorders like bipolar disorder or Huntington’s disease underscores both the insight and anxiety brought by genetic diagnosis. On a societal level, media reports about the “warrior gene” or “depression gene” prompt public debate about the balance between scientific understanding and deterministic labelling.---
VI. Integrative and Contemporary Perspectives
The limitations inherent in each separate model of abnormality have spurred the rise of more integrative frameworks, such as the biopsychosocial model. This widely adopted approach in the UK emphasises that mental health issues typically arise from a confluence of biological vulnerability, psychological stressors, and social context. The case of Grenfell Tower survivors, for example, highlights how trauma, community dislocation, and individual resilience intertwine.Contemporary understanding therefore emphasises cultural competence in diagnosis, avoidance of ethnocentric bias, and the ethical responsibility to distinguish between genuine distress and mere difference. This is seen in UK policy initiatives like the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme, which caters for elderly, BAME, and LGBT+ populations with tailored approaches.
---
Conclusion
The definition of abnormality is a dynamic and contested arena, reflective of social attitudes, scientific advances, and psychological theory. Approaches grounded in social norms, functional impairment, and ideal mental health each offer valuable insights, but equally contain significant pitfalls and cultural blind spots. The biological approach delivers scientific rigour and clinical applications, yet must be interpreted within a broader context that recognises the richness of human experience. In contemporary Britain—a nation increasingly diverse in both culture and belief—a nuanced, integrated understanding of abnormality is imperative. Moving forward, psychology is best served by embracing both advances in neuroscience and the subtleties of individual and cultural diversity, providing a truly compassionate and effective response to those in need.Frequently Asked Questions about AI Learning
Answers curated by our team of academic experts
What are the main definitions of abnormality in psychology?
The main definitions include deviation from social norms, failure to function adequately, and deviation from ideal mental health, each highlighting different criteria for abnormality.
How does the deviation from social norms approach define abnormality in psychology?
Abnormality is defined as behaviour that significantly diverges from the unwritten rules and shared expectations of society.
Why is defining abnormality in psychology considered challenging?
Defining abnormality is challenging due to cultural assumptions, historical context, and varying personal judgements about what is 'normal' or 'abnormal.'
What is a key criticism of using social norms to define abnormality in psychology?
A key criticism is that social norms vary across cultures and times, making this definition inconsistent and sometimes discriminatory.
How does the biological approach to abnormality in psychology differ from social norm definitions?
The biological approach focuses on physiological and genetic factors, while the social norms definition relies on collective societal expectations of behaviour.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in